Trump signs order sweeping away Obama-era climate policies

[BigKahuna]

Just now, craigt3365 said:

I lived in Manhattan for years.  About 10 years ago, you would see days like the bad one listed above on a regular basis.  The good one was a rare day.  I lived on the 29th floor on 72nd street with a view to the Statue of Liberty.  Stunning view at times.

 

That's a troll post with that picture.  I could do the same today right here in Pattaya.  Some days are good, some are horrible.

Yes and the pollution has nothing to do with co2 plant food which is colourless and not pollution.

 

Yet the media runs visual pollution images when trying to con the public on co2 stories.

 

 

[craigt3365]

4 minutes ago, BigKahuna said:

Yes and the pollution has nothing to do with co2 plant food which is colourless and not pollution.

 

Yet the media runs visual pollution images when trying to con the public on co2 stories.

 

 

Agreed.  But there's no denying we are polluting the air on this planet.  Spend a day in any major city anywhere in the world.  It's rare to see the sun.  I didn't last 24 hours in Delhi.  Mexico City was terrible.  Los Angeles is bad also.  Most cities in China are terrible. 

 

Humans do have a negative impact on this climate.  No denying that.  To what extent is the question.

 

Take a drive through Borneo and you'll see hundreds of square miles of pristine forest that's been clear cut for palm oil.  Same has happened in places all over the world.  Things like this will have an impact on the climate.

[Scott]

A number of posts have been reported and removed.   Please use approved sources in posting.  

 

Please stay on topic.   Continuing a general discussion about climate change is not a part of the topic.   It is about the effect of EO.  

[canthai55]

Saying country A is not doing enough ... country B is a leading contributor ... half a brain says it can not be good to pump and dump all this garbage into the atmosphere and the ocean. We all live on the same planet - pointing fingers without admitting your responsibility is wrong. ALL of our responsibilities. But - as ever - the Golden Rule remains. Especially in politics.

[boomerangutang]

                  It's plain that there are a small minority of folks who adamantly don't want to acknowledge that the planet has been warming in past several decades.  It's the same sort who believe Obama is a Kenyan Muslim, and that Noah's Ark really happened as described in the Biblical fairy tale.

 

              The more proof they're shown otherwise, the more stuck they get to their wrong ideas. 

[boomerangutang]

Yet more data, this time from NASA, which proves what most scientists and reasonable people have been aware of for many years:   Sea ice in both the Arctic and Antarctic are continuing to reach record lows, year by year.

 

nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/sea-ice-extent-sinks-to-record-lows-at-both-poles

 

Deniers, of course, will continue to deny.

[RPCVguy]

Trumps actions eliminating measures such as mandating better gas mileage in cars is a denial of a real problem. This is the latest flow diagram for American energy. The USA WASTES over 68% of the energy it extracts, and the largest share of that is in transportation, over 78%. 
The image is from http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/4/13/15268604/american-energy-one-diagram



Climate Science is complicated because the Earth is a complex system of interactive chemical and physical processes. Those balances were always shifting, but because of so many interactions the shifts of magnitude as to planetary temperatures cycled over many centuries or millennia. Over the past million years, the main shifts in temperature are known as Ice Ages, and they were primarily instigated by shifts in the orbital shape and axial orientation or Earth vs the sun. The significance of the time frame is that most modern life forms are adapted to these conditions... evolved into being during these time frames. Even during the Ice Ages, we know that orbital shifts alone were not of a magnitude in energy absorbed from the sun vs radiated back to space to cause amount of temperature swings seen. The orbital variations were only a starting mechanism that affected multiple balances. Start lowering sunlight received and absorbed and temperatures lower, ...  and the amount of water vapor held in the atmosphere drops - and as has been stated correctly, water vapor is a greenhouse gas. Lowering greenhouse gases then multiplies the effect started by the orbit, causing temperatures to drop yet further.

Among the balances involved and observed in the Ice Ages is the atmospheric concentration of CO2. Like water vapor, it is transparent to "visible" light (the electromagnetic frequencies our eyes have evolved to differentiate) but absorbs frequencies in the heat energy spectrum, insulating the release of heat energy back to space. Like water vapor, it too is shown to drop in concentration during Ice Ages, thus was one of the factors affecting the degree that temperature lowered.

There is a key difference between CO2 and water vapor. The latter is subject to becoming saturated in the atmosphere and precipitating out as rain or snow whenever its concentration becomes too high for the air temperature. CO2 is able to continue growing as an insulation blanket without precipitating out. It is the shift in concentration of CO2 since human industrialization began that is tipping the balance of the Earth's heat absorption over radiance. The density increase in CO2 has become the dominant shift in the planet's energy balances, and yet the range of interactions now begun by a 42% increase in CO2 now is at a net rate of warming of 4 Watts per square meter, for each square meter of the Earth. It sounds small, but multiplied through and it is an enormous amount of energy

 

 yet again diffused 93% into the oceans and slowly mixed to ever greater depths and the warming is hard to notice. Up until recently it would only be in an El Nino year when warm waters stayed at the surface that the atmosphere was much affected, that humans were affected enough to much notice the planetary net heat accumulation. 2016 was the end of an El Nino, yet January through March of 2017 each set new records. We may be noticing the net effect of enough Arctic Ice melt to be noticing that as a complication in atmospheric temperatures.

So, in terms that I have used with younger students, the above has listed enough information to explain the increased warming, stated where it goes that it is less apparent to land animals (while killing coral) and linked it all back to the folly of a president in undoing a law that would slow the release of CO2. 
Yes, population is a huge problem, compounding the rate of release - especially among richer, more energy consuming people. I don't see human society as being up to the challenge of responding in a unified manner soon enough to avoid many serious consequences set in motion by the greenhouse gases already released. Tackling them would change the lifestyles of too many people currently holding financial wealth and political influence. I respond now to set the record straight as to what is known, in case some critical proportion of humanity can become aware and shift societal policies. Maybe there is time to avoid extinction.

Edited April 14, 2017 by RPCVguy

[Traveler19491]

On 4/11/2017 at 8:19 AM, mesquite said:

Finally we have a president who is not afraid to stand up to the climate change hoaxers.

Please explain the "hoax" to me...with supporting evidence from non-partisan sources. And just so that you're aware, Alex Jones and Breitbart are NOT non-partisan. I find it hilarious that people actually believe that thousands of scientists have somehow come together  in a global conspiracy to formulate a worldwide scam...for what purpose?

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

Please explain the "hoax" to me...with supporting evidence from non-partisan sources. And just so that you're aware, Alex Jones and Breitbart are NOT non-partisan. I find it hilarious that people actually believe that thousands of scientists have somehow come together  in a global conspiracy to formulate a worldwide scam...for what purpose?

You know for the huge amount of money involved as compared to the puny income  enjoyed by the fossil fuel industries. I mean if there's one thing history shows us, it's that the fossil fuel industry has been virtually powerless to effect laws and regulations for the past 100 years. 

[ELVIS123456]

Bell's Theorem -   In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: 'No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics'.  Hawking himself has supported the theorem as have many mathematical professors. No one has been able to prove it wrong, and every few years another 'theory' based on computer modelling is found to be false.

 

In the last 5-10 years there has been a debate among mathematicians about the validity of using computer modelling to make deterministic outcomes.  This debate covers every subject from using computer modelling to develop and test theories of the Universe, down to using it to predict climate change. At the heart of these discussions is Bell's Theorem regarding the use of algorithms to determine outcomes based on unknown or incalculable variables. Computers use algorithmic methods to achieve outcomes, which are fundamentally linear based equations.  

 

Bell's theorem applies to complex non-linear computer models using linear Algorithms for predicting world climate, the same way it applies in studying the universe. Bell's theorem states that this will provide predetermined outcomes.

 

Algorithms are mathematical formula and have a long history that can be traced back to the 9th century. The term Algorithm was developed by a Persian mathematician called  Al-Khwarizmi who formally developed this mathematical technique.  Isaac Newton evolved mankind's understanding of the Universe and mathematics in 17th century, and he started the development of Calculus.  Einstein then used Calculus in 20th century to develop Relativity to enhance (and correct) our understanding of the Universe, and with it mathematics. At the same time and going forward, several mathematicians developed quantum mechanics (Planck, Dirac and others),  and then chaos theory or the "butterfly effect" was first developed by Lorenz. 

 

Whilst cosmologists, scientists and mathematicians are using these mathematical developments and computer modelling to analyse and predict the Universe, they all do so in the full knowledge and acceptance that at best it is an 'educated guess'. They all know that Bell's Theorom applies and that they work on the basis that everything and anything can be changed and debunked (and often is). Cosmologists accept that each outcome and theory is but a step on the path of knowledge. Einstein's Theory is still just that - a Theory - it has not been 100% confirmed - 99.9 yes, but not 100.

 

However climate scientists treat all speculation and dispute with their predicted outcomes  with disdain, and desperately cling to the very predictive outcomes that they themselves created. They refuse to accept Bell's Theorem applies, and are more and more being shown up as they dig a deeper and deeper hole.

 

Bell's own words:  "Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

 

Computers cannot perform Calculus - they perform Algorithms.  While algebra focuses on solving equations, calculus is primarily focused on the rate of change of functions. The prime example being finding how much a function will change at an arbitrary point. The two main operations of calculus is differentiating (find the rate of change of a function) and integration (find the area under a curve of a function). These two important operations are linked together by the fundamental theorem of calculus. 

 

What all that means is that computer models using algorithms to predict future outcomes, based on knowledge of variables that is incomplete or lacking, will result on predetermined outcomes.  As Lorenz stated, a butterfly's wing flap can cause a hurricane - it is indeterminate. 

 

What it also means is that is was politically expedient and stupid for Obama to agree to a 20% reduction in USA's 2004 CO2 emissions levels by 2020, while allowing China to increase theirs by 40%.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

https://www.quora.com/How-is-calculus-different-than-algebra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

 

Edited April 22, 2017 by ELVIS123456
forgot references

[craigt3365]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

You know for the huge amount of money involved as compared to the puny income  enjoyed by the fossil fuel industries. I mean if there's one thing history shows us, it's that the fossil fuel industry has been virtually powerless to effect laws and regulations for the past 100 years. 

https://www.treehugger.com/corporate-responsibility/exxon-spends-more-on-lobbying-than-entire-clean-energy-industry-combined.html

 

https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01

Quote

Total for Oil & Gas: $117,516,956
Total Number of Clients Reported: 175
Total Number of Lobbyists Reported: 720
Total Number of Revolvers: 431 (59.9%)

That's a lot of money spent on lobbyists! 

[craigt3365]

Just now, Traveler19491 said:

Please explain the "hoax" to me...with supporting evidence from non-partisan sources. And just so that you're aware, Alex Jones and Breitbart are NOT non-partisan. I find it hilarious that people actually believe that thousands of scientists have somehow come together  in a global conspiracy to formulate a worldwide scam...for what purpose?

I've been in many different countries around the world over the past few years. I've seen retreating glaciers in many countries.  Currently in Lebanon where the mountains are no longer covered in snow all year.  Climate change for sure.

[jerojero]

This guy is a <deleted><deleted> <deleted>! How can people be so stupid not to see the planet is in jeopardy. I worry for the generations ahead.

[kaorop]

what i want to see is those who rebuke the scientists warnings on the climate

 

also rebuke the scientists medicines and other life saving technologies and etc etc, so forth and so forth ad infinum.

 

until they do that, then they cant be regarded as anything but hypocrites.

[Traveler19491]

On 4/22/2017 at 8:23 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

Bell's Theorem -   In its simplest form, Bell's theorem states: 'No physical theory of local hidden variables can ever reproduce all of the predictions of quantum mechanics'.  Hawking himself has supported the theorem as have many mathematical professors. No one has been able to prove it wrong, and every few years another 'theory' based on computer modelling is found to be false.

 

In the last 5-10 years there has been a debate among mathematicians about the validity of using computer modelling to make deterministic outcomes.  This debate covers every subject from using computer modelling to develop and test theories of the Universe, down to using it to predict climate change. At the heart of these discussions is Bell's Theorem regarding the use of algorithms to determine outcomes based on unknown or incalculable variables. Computers use algorithmic methods to achieve outcomes, which are fundamentally linear based equations.  

 

Bell's theorem applies to complex non-linear computer models using linear Algorithms for predicting world climate, the same way it applies in studying the universe. Bell's theorem states that this will provide predetermined outcomes.

 

Algorithms are mathematical formula and have a long history that can be traced back to the 9th century. The term Algorithm was developed by a Persian mathematician called  Al-Khwarizmi who formally developed this mathematical technique.  Isaac Newton evolved mankind's understanding of the Universe and mathematics in 17th century, and he started the development of Calculus.  Einstein then used Calculus in 20th century to develop Relativity to enhance (and correct) our understanding of the Universe, and with it mathematics. At the same time and going forward, several mathematicians developed quantum mechanics (Planck, Dirac and others),  and then chaos theory or the "butterfly effect" was first developed by Lorenz. 

 

Whilst cosmologists, scientists and mathematicians are using these mathematical developments and computer modelling to analyse and predict the Universe, they all do so in the full knowledge and acceptance that at best it is an 'educated guess'. They all know that Bell's Theorom applies and that they work on the basis that everything and anything can be changed and debunked (and often is). Cosmologists accept that each outcome and theory is but a step on the path of knowledge. Einstein's Theory is still just that - a Theory - it has not been 100% confirmed - 99.9 yes, but not 100.

 

However climate scientists treat all speculation and dispute with their predicted outcomes  with disdain, and desperately cling to the very predictive outcomes that they themselves created. They refuse to accept Bell's Theorem applies, and are more and more being shown up as they dig a deeper and deeper hole.

 

Bell's own words:  "Suppose the world is super-deterministic, with not just inanimate nature running on behind-the-scenes clockwork, but with our behavior, including our belief that we are free to choose to do one experiment rather than another, absolutely predetermined, including the ‘decision’ by the experimenter to carry out one set of measurements rather than another, the difficulty disappears. There is no need for a faster-than-light signal to tell particle A what measurement has been carried out on particle B, because the universe, including particle A, already ‘knows’ what that measurement, and its outcome, will be."

 

Computers cannot perform Calculus - they perform Algorithms.  While algebra focuses on solving equations, calculus is primarily focused on the rate of change of functions. The prime example being finding how much a function will change at an arbitrary point. The two main operations of calculus is differentiating (find the rate of change of a function) and integration (find the area under a curve of a function). These two important operations are linked together by the fundamental theorem of calculus. 

 

What all that means is that computer models using algorithms to predict future outcomes, based on knowledge of variables that is incomplete or lacking, will result on predetermined outcomes.  As Lorenz stated, a butterfly's wing flap can cause a hurricane - it is indeterminate. 

 

What it also means is that is was politically expedient and stupid for Obama to agree to a 20% reduction in USA's 2004 CO2 emissions levels by 2020, while allowing China to increase theirs by 40%.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell's_theorem

https://www.quora.com/How-is-calculus-different-than-algebra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_quantum_mechanics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

 

 

13

While I appreciate the history lesson (not being sarcastic), the fact remains that it is the educated people making the educated guesses that you refer to. And given the multiple real-world examples of the effects of a warming global climate (http://www.goworldclass.com/evidence.html), I would prefer that our leaders adopt a "better safe than sorry" attitude. The result of our working to improve the atmosphere, should climate change prove to be a fallacy, would be a cleaner planet. The result of doing nothing only to later discover that it is real could very well be the extinction of the human species.

[ELVIS123456]

3 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

While I appreciate the history lesson (not being sarcastic), the fact remains that it is the educated people making the educated guesses that you refer to. And given the multiple real-world examples of the effects of a warming global climate (http://www.goworldclass.com/evidence.html), I would prefer that our leaders adopt a "better safe than sorry" attitude. The result of our working to improve the atmosphere, should climate change prove to be a fallacy, would be a cleaner planet. The result of doing nothing only to later discover that it is real could very well be the extinction of the human species.

I hear your sentiment, but you seem to think I am in complete disagreement with the need for reducing CO2 (and Methane etc) emissions.

 

Firstly, let me say that climate change has no more chance of our extinction than Aids, and far less than a Nuclear War. The far more likely source of our extinction (as shown in the past) is an Asteroid Strike. In my view they should be spending billions on that issue, rather than on 'climate change studies'.

 

Now to answer your point, I did not advocate :  "doing nothing".  What I did was point out the mathematical fallacy that the climate change models are absolutely correct - they are not. I also pointed out that Obama was pandering to his Liberal electorate when he signed the Paris agreement, as it was clearly unfair to the USA - especially when China and India and many others have very little to do.  And dont try to use those EU Nations like France that willingly also signed - they have a large percentage of power from their Nuclear Reactors - try building one of those in USA these days. And currently, both China and India, each produce/use more coal than USA - and they are allowed to increase that under the Paris Agreement and USA was shutting down their coal industry??

 

Rather than following the Liberal method of shutting down fossil fuel usage in USA through regulations, taxes and penalties, Trump is going to take a far more pragmatic approach and encourage the use of alternative technologies. This will likely include the support of improved fossil technologies, like 'cleaner' coal burning technologies that dramatically reduce emissions (Japan has it down 40%). Additionally, reductions in taxes and penalties for things like solar panels and electric cars are also are far better way to make changes.  And there are many other 'positive' ways to achieve the outcomes desired - less air pollution.

 

As many others have pointed out, things like the horse-carriage building industries have been closed long ago - technology moves on. But what they have failed to recognise is that this was a 'natural' outcome as things changed - they were not driven out of business by regulations, taxes and penalties - they went out of business because demand moved to the new products and technologies.  Encourage renewal technologies and industries - and if they are better and less costly then the market will move.  Liberals (modern Socialists) always think they can achieve desired outcomes in society without understanding that there will always be unknown variables - just like many climate scientists 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, ELVIS123456 said:

I hear your sentiment, but you seem to think I am in complete disagreement with the need for reducing CO2 (and Methane etc) emissions.

 

Firstly, let me say that climate change has no more chance of our extinction than Aids, and far less than a Nuclear War. The far more likely source of our extinction (as shown in the past) is an Asteroid Strike. In my view they should be spending billions on that issue, rather than on 'climate change studies'.

 

Now to answer your point, I did not advocate :  "doing nothing".  What I did was point out the mathematical fallacy that the climate change models are absolutely correct - they are not. I also pointed out that Obama was pandering to his Liberal electorate when he signed the Paris agreement, as it was clearly unfair to the USA - especially when China and India and many others have very little to do.  And dont try to use those EU Nations like France that willingly also signed - they have a large percentage of power from their Nuclear Reactors - try building one of those in USA these days. And currently, both China and India, each produce/use more coal than USA - and they are allowed to increase that under the Paris Agreement and USA was shutting down their coal industry??

 

Rather than following the Liberal method of shutting down fossil fuel usage in USA through regulations, taxes and penalties, Trump is going to take a far more pragmatic approach and encourage the use of alternative technologies. This will likely include the support of improved fossil technologies, like 'cleaner' coal burning technologies that dramatically reduce emissions (Japan has it down 40%). Additionally, reductions in taxes and penalties for things like solar panels and electric cars are also are far better way to make changes.  And there are many other 'positive' ways to achieve the outcomes desired - less air pollution.

 

As many others have pointed out, things like the horse-carriage building industries have been closed long ago - technology moves on. But what they have failed to recognise is that this was a 'natural' outcome as things changed - they were not driven out of business by regulations, taxes and penalties - they went out of business because demand moved to the new products and technologies.  Encourage renewal technologies and industries - and if they are better and less costly t% hen the market will move.  Liberals (modern Socialists) always think they can achieve desired outcomes in society without understanding that there will always be unknown variables - just like many climate scientists 

 

"What I did was point out the mathematical fallacy that the climate change models are absolutely correct - they are not."

When someone writes something like this with words like "absolutely corrrect" or "100 % correct, you know that are not being honest.  What scientists claim that their models are 100 % corrrect? This is just a smokescreen.  The odds are overwhelmingly likely that they have great predictive value, but I've never seen a scientist quoted who claims his or her model is 100% correct. This is just dishonest nonsense.

And coal is not being driven out of the electricity market in the USA by regulations. Coal mining companies themselves acknowledge this.  For one thing, there's a superabundance of natural gas from fracking. Are you familiar with fracking? The industry that massively flourished despite the killer regulations imposed by the Obama regime.

As for alternative energy sources. In Texas, that bastion of capitalism, wind energy is already a big and growing source of competitive energy.

As for "cleaner burning" coal, another more accurate way to put it would be "less filthy burning coal." Not only does the stuff generate twice as much CO2 per thermal unit generated as natural gas, but it puts mercury, a potent neurotoxin, into the air. And the mercury and other toxins that don't make it into the atmosphere remain in the form of coal ash, a toxic mess in itself. 

And then there's the economic fact of externalities. Even Milton Friedman had to concede that in the case of pollution, government intervention was necessary.

 

[Grubster]

I think that as soon as the foreign producers of products sent to the US have to live by the same rules, I am for all the environmental standards, as the work to implement these standards will put many people to work world wide.  If these standards only apply to the US and not all of its trading partners then these standards only take more jobs from the working class in the US, and I am against that. Its easy just apply tariffs equal to or greater than the savings the foreign companies are enjoying by polluting the world.   I know, theres a fat chance of that happening, it always comes down to money flowing into the right hands.  OK I'll get back to carving my box now.

[uptheos]

Just as easy as it can be signed, it can just as easily be unsigned.

 

At least he's trying to keep most of his  pre election promises to the people who stood by him during that period. Not something that many politicians do.

Edited April 24, 2017 by uptheos
spelling

[BigKahuna]

On 23/04/2017 at 0:50 AM, kaorop said:

what i want to see is those who rebuke the scientists warnings on the climate

 

also rebuke the scientists medicines and other life saving technologies and etc etc, so forth and so forth ad infinum.

 

until they do that, then they cant be regarded as anything but hypocrites.

30,000 scientists don't agree with the co2 theory.

 

And medical science has been littered with scandals.

 

 

[BigKahuna]

19 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

While I appreciate the history lesson (not being sarcastic), the fact remains that it is the educated people making the educated guesses that you refer to. And given the multiple real-world examples of the effects of a warming global climate (http://www.goworldclass.com/evidence.html), I would prefer that our leaders adopt a "better safe than sorry" attitude. The result of our working to improve the atmosphere, should climate change prove to be a fallacy, would be a cleaner planet. The result of doing nothing only to later discover that it is real could very well be the extinction of the human species.

Co2 is plant food not pollution. There is no real difference between doing nothing and pretending to do something except trillions wasted.

 

Co2 is a mere trace element.

[BigKahuna]

On 22/04/2017 at 11:31 PM, craigt3365 said:

I've been in many different countries around the world over the past few years. I've seen retreating glaciers in many countries.  Currently in Lebanon where the mountains are no longer covered in snow all year.  Climate change for sure.

Earth is billions of years old and glaciers go up and down every year.

 

Climate change for sure.

 

Between 1600 and 1814, it was not uncommon for the River Thames to freeze over for up to two months at time

[Traveler19491]

On 4/25/2017 at 0:04 AM, uptheos said:

Just as easy as it can be signed, it can just as easily be unsigned.

 

At least he's trying to keep most of his  pre election promises to the people who stood by him during that period. Not something that many politicians do.

 

Seriously? This just today on MSN regarding Trump's refusal to intervene on behalf of coal miners (http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/coal-miners-waiting-to-hear-from-trump/ar-BBAnbcH). Then there's this about the people who voted for him and his "beautiful wall" (http://pix11.com/2017/04/16/border-wall-could-leave-some-americans-on-mexican-side/). Oh, yeah, and that whole "jobs" thingy...from the guy who, along with his daughter, refuse to bring the manufacturing of their clothing lines back to the US from Mexico, China, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc., etc. etc. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/26/how-many-trump-products-were-made-overseas-heres-the-complete-list/?utm_term=.b26388456c5f). There's the repeal and replace of the ACA, which he promised would happen "on day one", along with a whole slew of other "day one" promises (http://fortune.com/2017/01/23/donald-trump-day-one-administration-promises/). Then there's my personal favorite...vacations. Trump swore during the campaign that he would hardly ever leave Washington because "there's just too much work to do." So far, he is averaging a golf outing every 5.9 days, most of them at Mar-a-Lago (at an average cost of $3.6 million to the taxpayer, putting him on track to spend more in one year on vacations than Obama did in eight).

 

In point of fact, the so-called President has yet to fulfil a single promise of substance that he made "pre-election". And if you genuinely believe that he gives a rat's patoot about "the people who stood by him", then I'm sorry, but you are just one more of the willingly ignorant whom he loves so much.

[Traveler19491]

On 4/25/2017 at 4:32 AM, BigKahuna said:

Co2 is plant food not pollution. There is no real difference between doing nothing and pretending to do something except trillions wasted.

 

Co2 is a mere trace element.

 

 

 

Before attempting to comment on something of a scientific bent, try using Google, that way you won't come across as quite so ignorant. Yes, CO2 is consumed by plants. It is also absorbed by the ocean. However, of the current amount of CO2 generated by human activity, only 25% gets utilized by plants, along with another 25% that is absorbed by the ocean. I'm not exactly a math wizard, but by my admittedly weak math skills I come up with a residue of 50% that remains in the atmosphere (http://theconversation.com/plants-absorb-more-co2-than-we-thought-but-32945). Additionally, of the 25% that is absorbed by plants, most of that (50%) returns to the atmosphere by plant respiration, and another 90% of what remains after that via microbial decomposition.

 

Your assertion that CO2 is a "trace element", while numerically true (.04%), fails to take into account it's effect on the climate. Let's see you consume just .04% of your body weight in mercury or arsenic and we'll observe the effect. It is not the numerical value but the impact on the ecosystem. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

Edited April 26, 2017 by Traveler19491

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/23/2017 at 2:31 AM, jerojero said:

This guy is a <deleted><deleted> <deleted>! How can people be so stupid not to see the planet is in jeopardy. I worry for the generations ahead.

The planet has been in "jeopardy" since it formed from space dust, and life on it is tenuous at best. An asteroid could strike again, as it did before etc etc.

While I have no dispute that the climate is changing, as it has for ever, I have seen no studies that suggest mankind can manipulate the weather back to something different. Man's attempts to modify ecosystems have usually ended in disastrous consequences.

Re removing CO2 from the atmosphere, there are proven technologies that can do that, but no one wants to pay for them. Strange, if it really is as serious as certain people make out. They'll let the human race die out because it's too expensive to do anything about it!

 

If any government was actually serious about it, instead of using it as an excuse to fly off to exotic locations for an all paid for jolly at taxpayer's expense, they could start by implementing population reduction strategies, and banning cars in cities.

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:

Before attempting to comment on something of a scientific bent, try using Google, that way you won't come across as quite so ignorant. Yes, CO2 is consumed by plants. It is also absorbed by the ocean. However, of the current amount of CO2 generated by human activity, only 25% gets utilized by plants, along with another 25% that is absorbed by the ocean. I'm not exactly a math wizard, but by my admittedly weak math skills I come up with a residue of 50% that remains in the atmosphere (http://theconversation.com/plants-absorb-more-co2-than-we-thought-but-32945). Additionally, of the 25% that is absorbed by plants, most of that (50%) returns to the atmosphere by plant respiration, and another 90% of what remains after that via microbial decomposition.

 

Your assertion that CO2 is a "trace element", while numerically true (.04%), fails to take into account it's effect on the climate. Let's see you consume just .04% of your body weight in mercury or arsenic and we'll observe the effect. It is not the numerical value but the impact on the ecosystem. Nice try at obfuscation, though.

OK, for the sake of the argument I'll agree that your unabsorbed 50% CO2 is going to destroy the environment that supports human life. However, if that is the case, what is being done that would make one iota of difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere?

Far as I can see, sod all.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2017 at 7:08 PM, ilostmypassword said:

"What I did was point out the mathematical fallacy that the climate change models are absolutely correct - they are not."

When someone writes something like this with words like "absolutely corrrect" or "100 % correct, you know that are not being honest.  What scientists claim that their models are 100 % corrrect? This is just a smokescreen.  The odds are overwhelmingly likely that they have great predictive value, but I've never seen a scientist quoted who claims his or her model is 100% correct. This is just dishonest nonsense.

And coal is not being driven out of the electricity market in the USA by regulations. Coal mining companies themselves acknowledge this.  For one thing, there's a superabundance of natural gas from fracking. Are you familiar with fracking? The industry that massively flourished despite the killer regulations imposed by the Obama regime.

As for alternative energy sources. In Texas, that bastion of capitalism, wind energy is already a big and growing source of competitive energy.

As for "cleaner burning" coal, another more accurate way to put it would be "less filthy burning coal." Not only does the stuff generate twice as much CO2 per thermal unit generated as natural gas, but it puts mercury, a potent neurotoxin, into the air. And the mercury and other toxins that don't make it into the atmosphere remain in the form of coal ash, a toxic mess in itself. 

And then there's the economic fact of externalities. Even Milton Friedman had to concede that in the case of pollution, government intervention was necessary.

 

Even Milton Friedman had to concede that in the case of pollution, government intervention was necessary.

Hmmmm. Governments have intervened to stop pollution?????? I think not. Whenever I go to the supermarket I get given polluting plastic bags, and there isn't a decent public transport system anywhere out of the major cities in my country. Every day, hundreds of people drive single occupant cars for many miles to get to work because there isn't a train service available.

All this "we must stop pollution" from government is a load of bunkum- they aren't doing anything worthwhile.

[ilostmypassword]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Even Milton Friedman had to concede that in the case of pollution, government intervention was necessary.

Hmmmm. Governments have intervened to stop pollution?????? I think not. Whenever I go to the supermarket I get given polluting plastic bags, and there isn't a decent public transport system anywhere out of the major cities in my country. Every day, hundreds of people drive single occupant cars for many miles to get to work because there isn't a train service available.

All this "we must stop pollution" from government is a load of bunkum- they aren't doing anything worthwhile.

Such nonsense. Just look at the waterways in the USA before the advent of the EPA. Or smog in major cities. Or the huge increases in energy efficiency. And affordable solar energy. It goes on and on. Things are bad. They would be much worse without government intervention.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 4/24/2017 at 5:38 PM, ELVIS123456 said:

I hear your sentiment, but you seem to think I am in complete disagreement with the need for reducing CO2 (and Methane etc) emissions.

 

Firstly, let me say that climate change has no more chance of our extinction than Aids, and far less than a Nuclear War. The far more likely source of our extinction (as shown in the past) is an Asteroid Strike. In my view they should be spending billions on that issue, rather than on 'climate change studies'.

 

 

IMO the cause of human extinction is more likely to be overpopulation and unsustainable demand for fresh water and arable land. Human demand for whale oil almost exterminated the whales, and that was when there were comparatively few humans.

However, superbugs will also likely exterminate people, given the human disregard for overuse of antibiotics. The Spanish flue killed millions, and that was when the population was a fraction of what it is now.

Imagine- the almighty human race brought down by bacteria!

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Such nonsense. Just look at the waterways in the USA before the advent of the EPA. Or smog in major cities. Or the huge increases in energy efficiency. And affordable solar energy. It goes on and on. Things are bad. They would be much worse without government intervention.

LOL. Government didn't make solar energy more affordable. Obama's attempt to do so was a failure.

No increase in efficiency of anything came about because of government. Government only causes inefficiency and unneccessary regulations.

If government wanted to make a difference they could stop paying people to have children. People cause pollution; more people cause more pollution, less people cause less pollution. Save the planet, have less children.